I'll answer our own question. And I started with this event because it's an interesting one as it's unusual to see an event where the gold medallist is ranked #4 and the silver medallist is #9, but this was a weird event this year.

I hate when rankings just take Olympic finishes and what not, but I don't really see how they rank the gold medallist Makhloufi #4 behind Gebrremedhin at #3. That is clearly a mistake in my mind.

Gebremedhin's 2012 consisted of not much honestly.

On the yearly list of times, he was 9th fastest at 3:31.45. He was 6th at the Olympics. He won one race all year although he did get a world indoor bronze.

Compare that to the Olympic champ. Makhloufi was #7 on the year in terms of time, dominated the Olympics and picked up two other wins. So three wins versus one, including a dominant Olympic gold and a better time? What am I missing?

That list is ridiculous. I know Manzano never ran a fast time, but the Olympic silver medalist should be ranked higher than 9th. Kiplagat 1nd? Not only was he not the fastest in the world, but he didn't horrible in the Olympics. Centro at 5th sounds about right. Here's how I'd rank these 10 people:

You should note that the 1st in Bislett was for the 1500, when every big name was in the Bislett mile. I'm not sure who else was in Zagreb either. The three meets of any consequence to judge him by are Monaco (5th), Olympics (1st), and Bruxelles (8th). TFN is clearly downplaying the importance of the Olympic finish to some extent.

After the Olympics, Kiprop didn't race and Kiplagat won in Rieti, Brussels and Lausanne.

This isn't a popularity test or a talent test. it's a reward for someone's entire body of work for 2012. As a result, I think ranking Kiplagat over Kiprop is justified.

I think the Manzano vs. Centro debate is similar. Clearly, in my mind, Centro is the man. What a racer and talent. If only he hadn't gotten hurt.

But if you are Manzano backer, you are likely scratching your head as Manzano beat him at both the Olympics and Olympic Trials. I wonder when they do their US rankings if they put Manzano #1, Centro #2.

Maybe this will spur us on do our own rankings. It's just very time consuming and hard to get 100% right.

After the Olympics, Kiprop didn't race and Kiplagat won in Rieti, Brussels and Lausanne.

This isn't a popularity test or a talent test. it's a reward for someone's entire body of work for 2012. As a result, I think ranking Kiplagat over Kiprop is justified.

I think the Manzano vs. Centro debate is similar. Clearly, in my mind, Centro is the man. What a racer and talent. If only he hadn't gotten hurt.

But if you are Manzano backer, you are likely scratching your head as Manzano beat him at both the Olympics and Olympic Trials. I wonder when they do their US rankings if they put Manzano #1, Centro #2.

1. Kiprop is just better. Kiplagat tripped Kiprop in Doha. Kiprop clearly would have won that without the stumble. Kiprop destroyed Kiplagat at Pre in the mile, and ran the first clean 3:28 in years. Kiprop was clearly better pre-injury.

2. Manzano beat Centro all 3 times they raced (Indoor US Champs, Olympic Trials, and Olympics). There's just no way you could argue Centro had a better year.

3. Even if you think Kiplagat should be ranked higher than Kiprop, he didn't medal at all in both Championships he was in. With that fact, you can't justify putting Kiplagat as #1.

Fluffy wrote:1. Kiprop is just better. Kiplagat tripped Kiprop in Doha. Kiprop clearly would have won that without the stumble. Kiprop destroyed Kiplagat at Pre in the mile, and ran the first clean 3:28 in years. Kiprop was clearly better pre-injury.

2. Manzano beat Centro all 3 times they raced (Indoor US Champs, Olympic Trials, and Olympics). There's just no way you could argue Centro had a better year.

3. Even if you think Kiplagat should be ranked higher than Kiprop, he didn't medal at all in both Championships he was in. With that fact, you can't justify putting Kiplagat as #1.

Look, one can easily make the argument Manzano should be ranked ahead of Centro but you can't just ignore stats in doing so.

Manzano did not beat Centro all 3 times the raced.

They raced 7 times in the same race this year and Centro led the year 4-3 as he beat Manzano 4 straight times after the Olympics.

Lausanne: Centro 3rd in 3:31.96, to Manzano 10th in 3:34.08.

Birmingham - Centro 8th in 3:37.94 to Manzano 11th in 3:42.20.

Brussels - Centro 4th in 3:32.47. Manzano 11th in 3:34.85.

5th Avenue - Centro 1st 3:52.4. Manzano 3rd in 3:53.1

Manzano was a total disaster after the Olympics save for 5th Avenue. If this was tennis, it would be like 3 straight flameouts in the first round.

I think at some level it's good these rankings exist as it gives the rest of the season meaning.

As for when our rankings are coming out, I haven't ever done them at the end of the year as it's impossible to please everyone.

Yes, Manzano started to fall apart after his Olympic silver, and Centro notched several impressive victories over him. But should those victories be accorded as much weight as the three championship races (U.S. indoor, Oly Trials, Olympics) in which Manzano did beat Centro?

You can talk about how statistics are important, and you can point to Centro's 4-3 record over Manzano, but those numbers only matter when you put them in their proper context.

Yes, Manzano started to fall apart after his Olympic silver, and Centro notched several impressive victories over him. But should those victories be accorded as much weight as the three championship races (U.S. indoor, Oly Trials, Olympics) in which Manzano did beat Centro?

You can talk about how statistics are important, and you can point to Centro's 4-3 record over Manzano, but those numbers only matter when you put them in their proper context.

SYM1971 wrote:I thought the purpose of the Olympics was to settle who's the best.

On that particular day yes.

T&FNs rankings have always been about determining who had the best season. It's not who anyone thinks is best, could haves or should haves. One may not choose to agree with how they do it but it's how they do it.

SYM1971 wrote:I thought the purpose of the Olympics was to settle who's the best.

In 1977 Lasse Viren said, "If you win, you're lasting. And the Games include all the best runners; they are the true world championships. I'm not the only one who thinks this way. All runners want to run against the very best. The question is not why I run this way, but why so many others cannot. Seventeen men had faster times than I did going into the Montreal 5,000 meters. The question is why they could not do it again in the Olympic Games."

Some events have seen a fluctuation in competition since Viren said that but I think the principle remains. There's loads of guys who can run the times that Makhloufi, Farah, Kemboi, and Kiprotich ran. But the only thing that matters is that they didn't do it on the day that counted most. I've heard so much shit about how a healthy Bekele would blow Farah out of the water, that 27:30 is child's play for him. Or that a healthy Kiprop would have destroyed the 1,500 field. Where were they then? When the great race was going on, where were these great runners everyone talks about? This is a big boy's game. You agree that whoever wins the race is the best and you sack up and run the thing.

Running on Empathy wrote:I find it entertaining that there are people here who still don't get the fact that Manzano's silver was a complete fluke. I'm sorry folks, but he just isn't that good. Deal with it.

Haha! Poor, pathetic people. Leo holds an Olympic silver medal in his hands. Obviously he is that good.

And ask any athlete this question...would you rather have an Olympic medal or a higher year end ranking established by some random track and field magazine.